December 3 , 2009

Docket Management Facility **Re.: Standards for Living Organisms in Ships’**  U.S. Department of Transportation **Ballast Water Discharged in U.S. Waters** West Building Ground Floor **(Docket ID No. USCG** 

**– 2001** 

**– 10486**  **)**

Room W12

- 140

1200 New J ersey Avenue, S.E. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Sir or Madam:

Golding Barge Line, Inc currently owns and operates 9 inland towboats and 22 inland tankbarges that will be adversely affected if the proposed Ballast Water regulations are implemented as writ ten.

With regard to our 22 tank barges, we take great care in preventing any water from entering the void spaces due to the fact that the introduction of any water will introduce MIC bacteria and support corrosion, effec tively reducing

the life of the bar ge. However, given the fact that the barges could potentially be ballasted, they will fall under the proposed rule.

Our 9 inland towboats are newly constructed since 2005, and have been designed with a movable ballas t system that uses potable water, whic h is moved internally around the boat to maintain an even trim as fuel is consumed on the vessel. The potable water is also used to supply water for toilets and the general cleaning of the vessel. This system was designed as a measure to prevent the use of river ballast and prevent the possibility that our vessels would contribute to the spread of invasive species in our waterway system.

Our company fully agrees with the stance taken by the American Waterways Operators as is attached an d listed

on the fo llowing pages.

**We specifically ask that vessels that do not ballast as a part of their normal operation, and boats utilizing**  **potable water for ballast be exempt**  **from the requirement to install ballast water treatment systems.**

Given the current state of our economy and the depressed market conditions, our industry would be extremely burdened financially, if required to incur the expense of adding equipment of this costly equipment.

Sincerely,

Ru s s ell Moore VP Operations Golding Barge Line, IncDocket ID No. USCG

– 2001

– 10486

December 4, 2009 Page 2

The Admi nistration Should Support a Uniform National Standard for Ballast Water and Other Vessel Discharges

We note, first, the critical need for a uniform national standard for ballast water and other vessel discharges. The issuance of this NPRM is a stark remind er of the untenable state of affairs that currently exists with respect to the regulation of vessel discharges: the Coast Guard regulates ballast water under the National Invasive Species Act (NISA); the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulates bal last water and other vessel discharges under the Clean Water Act’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program; and, because neither NISA nor section 402 of the Clean Water Act preempts state regulation of ballast water and other vessel discharges, dozens of states have established their own regimes governing vessel discharges. This patchwork of federal and state authorities poses enormous difficulties for vessels operating in interstate commerce. (A barge tow traveling from Pitt sburgh to New Orleans down the Ohio and Mississippi River systems, for example, travels through 11 states, each of which is free to establish its own unique requirements for vessel discharges in its waters.) While it is sometimes suggested

that better coo rdination among federal and state authorities to avoid conflicting standards is the solution to this problem, coordination alone is insufficient. Even if the various federal agencies and state authorities were to agree on a common discharge standard, for example, vessel owners would still be faced with the significant burden of complying with the multiplicity of administrative requirements (reporting, recordkeeping, inspections, training, etc.) imposed by the different statutory or regulatory authorities g overning vessel discharges.

The real solution is to establish a new, uniform statutory framework for the regulation of ballast water and other vessel discharges

– one that provides for effective, environmentally protective standards based on sound scienc e and is tailored to address the operational realities of mobile sources in interstate commerce. We urge the Administration to take a leadership role in working with Congress to bring about such a solution.Docket ID No. USCG

– 2001

– 10486

December 4, 2009 Page 3

The Rulemaking Record Does Not Support the P roposed Regulations

AWO is deeply disappointed that, even after the many years that this NPRM has been under development, the proposal is based on inaccurate assumptions and incomplete research that do not support the regulations as proposed. These defic iencies have led to a one

- size

- fits

- all proposal that has not and cannot be justified in its application to barges and towing vessels in

the U.S. domestic trade.

First, the rulemaking record simply does not support the proposal that was published in the Federal Register . Egregiously, neither the Preliminary Regulatory Analysis nor the Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (DPEIS) even discusses the two

- tiered standard approach proposed in the NPRM. Throughout these documents, the proposed Ph ase I standard is referred to as the “preferred alternative,” and analysis and justification for this standard is provided. Neither the Phase II standard nor the idea of a two

- phase approach to standard setting is even discussed in the regulatory analysis or DPEIS, much less analyzed for environmental benefit and economic feasibility. This glaring procedural defect suggests the troubling conclusion that the inclusion of the Phase II standard was a last

- minute political decision that was not subjected to t he thorough and dispassionate analysis that is 1) required by law and 2) the standard of care that the regulated public has a right to expect from government. We urge the Administration not to short

- circuit the regulatory process and to

ensure that all re quired procedural steps are undertaken as it proceeds toward the development of a final rule.

Moreover, the NPRM is also based on numerous inaccurate assumptions about the affected vessel population and its operating characteristics. For example, the re gulatory analysis states that vessels under 100 feet in length, vessels operating on rivers and tugboats towing astern generally do not carry ballast water. In fact, inland towboats of all sizes routinely carry ballast water to maintain trim as fuel is bu rned during a voyage; coastal tugboats carry ballast for trim and stability; and many barges, both inland and coastal, are ballasted for trim and stability, to ensure proper tow configuration, or to allow for better seakeeping when empty. An AWO member su rvey, which generated responses from 52 member companies (or about 20 percent of AWO’s carrier membership) identified more than 1,300 inland and coastal towing vessels and barges that carry ballast water in this small sample alone. The majority of these v essels have not been accounted for in the Coast Guard’s estimate of 2,600 U.S. vessels that would be affected by the notice of proposed rulemaking.Docket ID No. USCG

– 2001

– 10486

December 4, 2009 Page 4

The regulatory analysis also assumes that the proposed requirements would only affect vessels with the cap acity to carry large volumes of ballast water (450,000 gallons and up) and flow rates of 1,100 gallons per minute or more. In fact, the proposed rule would affect vessels with much smaller capacity and much lower flow rates. A typical inland towboat has 20,000

- 40,000 gallons of ballast water capacity; a typical coastal tug has 20,000

- 70,000 gallons. A small harbor tug might have a capacity of 2,000

- 3,000 gallons. While barges, especially oceangoing barges, have larger ballast capacities, the ballast capa city of many barges is still a fraction of that assumed in the regulatory analysis. Flow rates for barges and towing vessels discharging ballast water are also considerably less than those of other commercial vessels, ranging from 20 to 250 gallons per min ute.

Ballast Water Treatment Should Not Be Required for Towing Vessels and Barges

in the U.S. Domestic Trade

Without an accurate understanding of the affected vessel population and its characteristics,

the Coast Guard cannot make a defensible assessme nt of the scientific basis for, cost and

cost

- benefit of, and technical and operational feasibility of requiring ballast water treatment systems on a particular class of vessels. In fact, there is considerable evidence, or in some cases lack of evidence, to argue against the application of ballast water treatment requirements to towing vessels and barges in the U.S. domestic trade.

First, the DPEIS provides no evidence to suggest that ballast water discharged by towing vessels or barges operating exclusi vely on the inland river system, or within the same coastal ecosystem, has contributed to the introduction or spread of invasive species in U.S. waters. When the Coast Guard instituted nationwide ballast water reporting requirements in 2004, the agency tol d AWO that one of the principal purposes of collecting this data was to map vessel movements and ballast water discharge patterns against invasive species flows. AWO

was told that the Coast Guard would use this information to determine where ballast water discharges had contributed to the introduction or spread of invasive species and thus, where and on which classes of vessels ballast water treatment requirements would be justified. While the National Ballast Water Information Clearinghouse (NBIC) contai ns a wealth of data submitted by vessel owners over the past five years, we are aware of no effort by the Coast Guard to analyze the data to see what it suggests about the role of vessels, and particularly domestic vessels, in the introduction and spread o f invasive species. We note, as well, that the National Invasive Species Act exempts from ballast water management requirements crude oil tankers in the U.S. coastwise trade, presumably because they pose no risk of introducing invasive species into U.S. w aters. It would be patently unfair to subjectDocket ID No. USCG

– 2001

– 10486

December 4, 2009 Page 5

domestic towing vessels and barges with much smaller volumes of ballast water capacity to a

different standard.

Second, AWO is not aware of any ballast water treatment system that has been approved,

installed or even tested on vessels with the operating characteristics of many tugboats, towboats and barges, such as the following:

 Vessels operating exclusively in freshwater: Well over half of U.S. towing vessels and barges never operate in saltwater, and whil e some ballast water treatment chemicals can work on organisms in freshwater environments, AWO is not aware of any ballast water treatment **system** that has been tested or can be used on freshwater vessels. Indeed, in AWO’s conversations with treatment syste m manufacturers, it has been suggested that treatment systems for freshwater vessels have not yet been developed because their risk of introducing invasive species is so small.

 Vessels of very limited size. Many towing vessels are less than 125 feet long , with small engine rooms averaging between 900 and 1300 square feet. While treatment systems range in size, one of the smallest ones would take up about one

- tenth of this space. In a towing vessel engineroom, there is virtually no space not already

dedica ted to machinery or walkways. Keeping these areas clear and leaving enough room for engineers to maintain the existing equipment is critical to the safe operation of the vessel. Moreover, since ballast water treatment systems have not been tested on tugbo ats or towboats, it is unclear whether or not their installation is even possible on

vessels of such small size.

 Vessels with very low ballast water flow rates. The Preliminary Regulatory Analysis examined vessels with flow rates of 1,100 gallons per min ute and above; however, the flow rates of some tugboats are as low as 20 gallons per minute, and average flow rates for typical towing vessels are approximately 250 gallons per minute. Since flow rates must be high enough to pump water through the treatmen t system, vessels with low flow rates must install additional pumps in order to ensure that the system will work effectively. Not only was the cost of additional pumping equipment not assessed in the rulemaking record, it has not been demonstrated whether treatment systems employing additional pumps are feasible for installation on barges or towing

vessels.

 Vessels without installed ballast water piping. The ballast tanks of many barges and towing vessels are simply void spaces filled with water to keep the vessel stable.Docket ID No. USCG

– 2001

– 10486

December 4, 2009 Page 6

 In many cases, these tanks do not have any piping; they are filled and emptied shoreside with hoses or portable pumps. In order to install a ballast water treatment system, piping would have to be installed, an extensive and expensive process that may require developing an approved vessel

- specific design, conducting stability studies and taking the vessel out of service for weeks.

 Tank barges. There are serious safety and possibly regulatory impediments to the

installation of ballast w ater treatment systems that rely on electricity on tank barges.

Coast Guard regulations for electric equipment on vessels (46 CFR 111.105

- 31(l)) prohibit the placement of such equipment within 10 feet of any cargo tank vent outlet, cargo tank ullage openin g, cargo pipe flange, or cargo valve unless it is intrinsically safe, explosion proof, or purged and pressurized in order to prevent cargo vapors from exploding. It is unclear whether and how ballast water treatment systems could

be installed on inland tan k barges so as not to conflict with this regulation and avoid posing serious personnel safety risks.

Third, requiring the installation of treatment systems costing a half

- million dollars or more on thousands of towing vessels and barges with very limite d ballast water capacity is most likely cost

- prohibitive, and surely not cost

- effective. A 2009 survey by the California State Lands Commission contained cost estimates for 14 ballast water treatment systems, ranging in cost from $150,000 to $2.3 million p er system, with an average cost of $895,000. These estimates do not include the cost of removing the vessel from service in order to install the system, any modifications to the vessel (as would almost certainly be required for towing vessels and barges, for the reasons discussed above), or operation and maintenance of the system once installed. These cost estimates are truly staggering when compared to the value of a barge or towing vessel on which such a system might be installed. An inland barge can

c ost $400,000, less than half the cost of the average treatment system examined in the California survey! An inland towing vessel can cost as little as $3 million and a coastal tugboat as little as $5 million, meaning a vessel owner could be required to in stall a piece of equipment worth one

- third to one

- fifth of the vessel’s value. These costs (which were neither assessed nor justified in their application to most towing vessels and barges, given the Coast Guard’s erroneous assumptions about the affected v essel population) are particularly egregious given the very high percentage of barge and towing companies that are small businesses. The Congressionally

- authorized Towing Safety Advisory Committee estimated in a 2008 analysis that some 90 percent of barge and towing companies qualify as small

businesses under the Small Business Administration definition. These costs must be considered not only in absolute terms, but against the backdrop of the lack of evidence that domestic towing vessels or barges have co ntributed to the introduction or spread of invasive species, the smaller volumes of ballast water transported by these vessels, and theDocket ID No. USCG

– 2001

– 10486

December 4, 2009 Page 7

technological and operational impediments to the installation of ballast water treatment systems on towing vessels and b arges.

The Coast Guard Should Exempt Other Vessel Operations That Do Not Pose a Risk of Introducing Invasive Species

In addition to not requiring ballast water treatment systems on towing vessels and barges in the U.S. domestic trade, the Coast Guard sh ould exempt any vessel with the following operational characteristics, which pose little or no risk of introducing or spreading invasive species:

 Vessels that use only municipal or commercial water for ballast. Many towing vessels and barges fall into th is category, using potable water from shoreside sources

for ballast instead of river or sea water.

 Vessels that carry ballast water or have ballast tanks but do not take on or discharge ballast water in U.S. waters. These vessels do not pose a risk of t ransferring invasive species into or within U.S. waters and should not be required to install treatment
systems.

 Vessels that operate in more than one Captain of the Port (COTP) zone but only take on and discharge ballast water in a single zone. A towing vessel might, for example, operate throughout the inland river system but only take on ballast water to ride lower in the water when passing under the low bridges near Chicago, discharging the ballast water in the same zone when the bridge transit is comp leted. Such vessels should be exempted for the same reasons as vessels that operate exclusively within a single

COTP zone.

We also urge the Coast Guard to correct what appears to be a technical error in the regulatory text and ensure that the proposed e xemption for vessels operating exclusively in one COTP zone (33 CFR 151.2105) extends to the ballast water management requirements (33 CFR 151.2025), consistent with the description of this provision in the preamble to the NPRM.Docket ID No. USCG

– 2001

– 10486

December 4, 2009 Page 8

Eliminate the Two

- Tier Ap proach or Provide Lifetime Grandfathering

for Vessels with Installed Treatment Systems

AWO urges the Coast Guard to eliminate the proposed two

- tier standard and adopt a single ballast water discharge standard that is both effective in neutralizing invasiv e species in ballast water and practicable for installation on vessels. While we are sympathetic to the conceptual rationale for the two

- tier approach

– set an achievable standard in the near term and ramp up to a higher standard if and when technology al lows

– it is simply impractical to expect a vessel owner to install a treatment system costing as much as $1 million and then replace that system before the end of its useful life. We see two options to avoid this unacceptable situation: first, the Coast Guard could elect to conduct a practicability review now to assess whether the proposed Phase II standard is feasible and, if so, eliminate Phase I and establish an appropriate timeline for installation of Phase II systems. Alternatively, the

Coast Guard could implement the Phase I standard as proposed (and subject to the modifications discussed in these comments), with the proviso that any vessel that installs a system meeting the Phase I standard will not be required to replace that system before the

end of the system’s, or the vessel’s, useful life. If a practicability review subsequently allows for adoption of the Phase II standard, the Coast Guard could apply the Phase II requirement to new vessels (or vessels replacing systems that have reached the e nd of their useful life) only.

The Practicability Review Should Ensure That Systems Are Practicable

for Any Class of Vessels on Which They Will Be Required

AWO urges the Coast Guard to ensure that the proposed practicability review is robust and comprehen sive. Specifically, we recommend that the practicability review examine the following factors and ensure that any proposed standard is:

 Effective in neutralizing invasive species. This requires ensuring that tools and protocols exist to measure the effect iveness of the standard;.

 Technologically feasible for installation on the vessels that will be required to install treatment systems meeting the standard. Treatment systems should not be required on any class of vessels unless the system has been tested and proven practicable given those vessels’ engineroom size and design, ballast water capacity, tank configuration, flow rate, etc.;Docket ID No. USCG

– 2001

– 10486

December 4, 2009 Page 9

 Commercially available. That is, systems meeting the standard are on the market and available in sufficient quantity to allow for purchase and installation by the population of affected vessels on the required regulatory schedule;

 Safe for use with the characteristics of the vessels to which it will be applied (i.e., proximity to flammable or combustible cargo, etc.); and,

 Cost

- effective for use on the vessels that will be required to use it. A system whose cost would drive vessel owners out of business or impose severe economic hardship

is not cost

- effective and should not be required.

While the Coast Guard has specifica lly solicited comments on the factors to be included in the practicability review that takes place before implementation of the Phase II standard, the same considerations are no less relevant to the application of the Phase I standard. We urge

the Coast G uard to ensure that a complete analysis of these factors is conducted in the process of finalizing the proposed regulations and before ballast water treatment system requirements are applied to any given vessel class.Docket ID No. USCG

– 2001

– 10486

December 4, 2009 Page 10

Conclusion

AWO urges the Coast Gua rd to:

 Play a lead role in encouraging the Administration to support a uniform federal statutory framework for the regulation of ballast water and other vessel discharges;

 Ensure that the rulemaking record is complete and accurate, following all required procedural steps and reflecting accurate assumptions about the affected vessel population, before proceeding to finalize the proposed regulations;

 Refrain from requiring treatment standards on towing vessels and barges in the U.S. domestic trade;

 Exempt fr om the proposed requirements vessels using municipal or commercial water for ballast, vessels that do not discharge ballast water in U.S. waters, and vessels that only take on and discharge ballast water in a single COTP zone, in addition to vessels

that o perate exclusively within a single COTP zone;

 Eliminate the two

- tier standard or, alternatively, provide that a vessel installing a treatment system that complies with the Phase I standard will not be required to replace that system if and when a Phase II standard is implemented; and,

 Conduct a robust and comprehensive practicability review prior to requiring ballast water treatment systems on any class of vessels.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment. We would be pleased to answer any questions or

p rovide further information as the Coast Guard sees fit.